EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE CHIKKAMAGALURU vs BHANU. — 2029/2025
Case under Karnataka Excise Act 1965 Section U/SEC.32,34,38(A),R/w,SEC.275,OF,BNS. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KACM400027252025
Filing Number
2029/2025
Filing Date
14-Aug-2025
Registration No
2029/2025
Registration Date
14-Aug-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE
Judge
222-Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere
Last updated 13-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE CHIKKAMAGALURU
Adv. A.P.P
Respondent(s)
-
1.BHANU.
Case History
-
28-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere
-
30-Jan-2026
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere
-
19-Jan-2026
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere
-
15-Dec-2025
DepositionView PDF
Summary Case No. C.C. 2029/2025 before the Principal Civil Judge, Mudigere Court (Karnataka). The court examined two witnesses in an excise-related matter dated 15.12.2025. Both witnesses testified regarding fingerprint identification, photographs, and documents, but stated they had no knowledge of certain materials and did not provide statements before excise authorities. The court recorded their testimonies and allowed cross-examination by the prosecution advocate, with no re-examination requested. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Dec-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere
-
27-Nov-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere
-
05-Nov-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere
-
09-Oct-2025
ChargeView PDF
-
09-Oct-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere
-
22-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2029/2025
Summary Case No. C.C. 2029/2025 before the Principal Civil Judge, Mudigere Court (Karnataka). The court examined two witnesses in an excise-related matter dated 15.12.2025. Both witnesses testified regarding fingerprint identification, photographs, and documents, but stated they had no knowledge of certain materials and did not provide statements before excise authorities. The court recorded their testimonies and allowed cross-examination by the prosecution advocate, with no re-examination requested. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts